Thursday, February 17, 2011

Revisiting HJR 93

I feared that I dismissed HJR 93 too quickly.  To say that a proposed constitutional amendment is a dead in the water requires knowing what has to be achieved to change document.  Thus I spent some quality research time with "Wiki Answer" or some similar website.  This does bring flashbacks to the day in law school when a fellow student was caught redhanded using Wikipedia to introduce a case.  the horror, the horror.  The prof. was right to yell, scream, and kick the student out.  A judge may take judicial notice of  Wikipedia, but it is not yet binding precedent in Texas law.  Yesterday while researching the Miller Act, I briefly paused on the Wiki entry.  I learned from the mistakes I observed in school.  I closed the door to my office to make sure no one was watching. 

Back to changing the constitution.  The amendment process set forth in Article 17 of the Texas Constitution is a good alternative to violent revolution or writing your own, personal constitution (like my great-uncle Nalle).  The proposed amendment must be raised as a Joint Resolution.  HJR 93 is off to a good start assuming that there was companion resolution in the Senate.  Next, both the House and Senate must approve the submission of the amendment by a 2/3 majority.  Then, the amendment is submitted to the voters of Texas where is must receive a simple majority of the votes to become part of the Texas Constitution.

No comments:

Post a Comment